Hal Varian: Kaizen, That Continuous Improvement Strategy

Hal Varian takes a look at "kaizen, the practice of continuous improvement" as a business strategy for the internet age:

Kaizen, That Continuous Improvement Strategy, Finds Its Ideal Environment, by Hal R. Varian, Economic Scene, NY Times: Remember when Japanese manufacturing techniques were all the rage? You could hardly read the business press without encountering mention of “lean manufacturing,” “just-in-time inventory systems” and “total quality management.”

You don’t hear much about these ideas anymore, but not because they are no longer in fashion. Quite the reverse is true... [O]ne of the most important drivers of online business success is taken directly from the pages of Japanese management techniques. I am referring to kaizen, the practice of continuous improvement.

Kaizen ... refers to a disciplined process of systematic exploration, controlled experimentation and then painstaking adoption of the new procedures. In the original formulation, kaizen was applied to manufacturing, where experimentation could determine whether a new process resulted in quality improvements or cost savings in a matter of months.

It is much more difficult to apply kaizen to product design, since it can easily take years to design and market a new product. ... Product development can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, making it almost impossible to run a controlled experiment...

But it is simple to run a controlled experiment with a Web page. Amazon can show a different page layout to every hundredth visitor and determine in a few days whether the new design increases sales. Similarly, a search engine can run a controlled experiment to try out a new tweak to its search algorithm... On the Web, continuous improvement really is continuous. ...

Given a performance measure, be it clicks, revenue or something entirely different, a disciplined process of experimentation and evaluation can lead to rapid improvements. The easier it is to experiment and the larger the number of users, the quicker this process can work. ...

Old media just do not understand online kaizen. Their perceptions are tied to the print world, where design changes are costly. The Wall Street Journal spent years planning its recent redesign of the print edition and millions of dollars rolling it out. Yet it will be months before it becomes clear how successful these changes were.

By contrast, small tweaks in the page layout of online content can be very effective in improving user satisfaction and ad clicks. Controlled experiments can be used to determine the impact of these changes in days rather than months.

Yet how many mainstream publishers have Web page software that allows for such controlled experimentation? In most cases, there is but one layout, and experimentation is difficult if not impossible. You can’t manage what you can’t measure — and if you can’t easily experiment..., management is seriously handicapped.

Kaizen means that the companies currently in an industry have an inherent advantage over new entrants. Entrants have to guess what will work; the companies that are already operating can experiment and find out. This information advantage doesn’t preclude new entries; it just makes it more costly since the learning curve is steeper.

Amazon has some worthy competition in online department stores. But how likely is it that a new entrant will emerge from nowhere and successfully compete...? The experience that existing online retailers like Amazon, Buy.com and eBay have built up is hard to duplicate. A new entrant, even one as strong as Wal-Mart, finds the online world rough going.

This is not to say that new entry is impossible. ... New entrants have the advantage of avoiding earlier mistakes. They can copy successful operations and, in many cases, improve on them. Newer, faster and more flexible information systems can sometimes confer a competitive advantage on new entrants...

But the ability to experiment easily is a critical factor... Being able to figure out quickly what works and what doesn’t can mean the difference between survival and extinction.

Comments

[evagrius]

I wish the author had mentioned that kaizen is not of purely Japaneses origin.
After WWII, Japan's industrial base was in shambles. A number of Americans were involved in the reconstruction effort as advisors.
One of them W. Edwards Seming urged the Japanese to focus on improving product quality. By doing so, they would find that long term profitabiity would be insured.
Demings is the major intellectual source for Kaizen.
Ironically, his philosophy of focusing on quality was never implemented in the U.S. until after the Japanese "shock" of the 60's and 70's.

[Bruce Wilder]

Very interestng.

It is too bad that the "first mover" concept has been dumbed down to simply denote early entrants or pioneers. The "first move" is not entry, but organizing to learn. The first firm to organize a dynamic process of product/process development acquires a privileged and protected position, for the reasons Prof. Varian has outlined.

[ninjaplease]

kaizen is used in the us to find new ways to lay people off, while throwing out documentation processes and or quality processes such as product testing which is clearly non-value add, despite the rage customers will feel when they buy a defective product, and of course it is used to justify the firing of every quality inspector.

I don't know of a single company where this isn't the case in the US. Thanks Six Sigma, you've empowered the ignorant to guarantee future company failure when moral hits that certain threshold when all the value-add employees quit on their own in disgust.

Truly "Lean" to be sure.

[richard]

ninjaplease makes a good point -- the companies which use kaizen are often marketing driven. IT processes in those companies are often times more ad-hoc and gummed together, and as such code builds up it becomes more and more inflexible.

Ideally one would have a balance, but in most companies there is fierce warfare between IT and marketing, with a winner-take-all sensibility. I've worked on both sides of this divide, and there are no good guys here, only egos.

[Lafayette]

“New entrants have the advantage of avoiding earlier mistakes. They can copy successful operations and, in many cases, improve on them. Newer, faster and more flexible information systems can sometimes confer a competitive advantage on new entrants...”

There is a real difference between “improvement” and “innovation”. I am not sure the author put his finger on the difference.

Both can happen in any domain, but he has chosen as an example the Internet. Maybe he was looking for an illustration that most people were familiar with and therefore understand more or less well.

The Internet is not all that young … certainly not for those who have been working with it since its inception in the early eighties, when it broke out of its ARPANET playpen and went truly public.

Has it continually improved? Some would say no. Considering the average file size that must be download to paint a screen, then if you do not have a DSL connection, the speed at which you are downloading perhaps hasn’t changed all that much. And, even if you do, in rural zones DSL often runs at a snail’s pace.

There are two real innovations (and blogs are not one of them). The internet has imposed itself as commercial entity, having squeezed out the middle-man in retailing markets. And, it is a quick entry to a vast amount of information, which is often easier to obtain than to cull.

Does the Internet “improve” commerce? No, it simply accelerates it. Does it “improve” access to bibliographic information? No, it speeds its exploitation as a tool. People buy goods as they always have and the right nugget (of information) must still be found amidst the mass of dirt.

I would consider a real innovation of the Internet to be not just the obtaining of information, but its search according to multiple criteria that would pinpoint the information that is found, which is then coupled with a synthesis of how the information relates to other contexts in which it is used.

Often the relationship of a parameter or idea amongst multiple contexts triggers its application in an entirely new context. This spawns real value added thought. Now that is innovative.

Methinks.

[Lafayette]

evg: "Demings is the major intellectual source for Kaizen. Ironically, his philosophy of focusing on quality was never implemented in the U.S. until after the Japanese "shock" of the 60's and 70's."

Deming’s initial success was in improving QC during WW2. He was already renowned by the early fifties when the Japanese sought him out after the first Japanese exports to the US failed miserably due to lack of quality.

Why did Deming go to Japan? I suspect it was due to the fact that the US was flush with hubris after its victory of WW2. Its uptake on Deming’s work in peacetime was likely not what Deming had hoped for.

As you say, the sixties would see Japan "shock" America with innovation and quality products. And, when Toyota overtakes GM sometime this year or next in car production, will somebody finally get the message?

And, if they do, will it sink in? I doubt it.

[evagrius]

From Wikipedia;

"Kaizen is often misunderstood and applied incorrectly, resulting in bad outcomes including, for example, layoffs. This is called "kaiaku" - literally, "change for the worse." Layoffs are not the intent of kaizen. Instead, kaizen must be practiced in tandem with the "Respect for People" principle. Without "Respect for People," there can be no continuous improvement. Instead, the usual result is one-time gains that quickly fade."

If kaizen is an excuse for lay-offs then it isn't kaizen but something else.
It's typical of U.S. corporate management to use, without reflection, any trendy technique to further short-term profit at the expense of really having to think and act with integrity.

Demings always held that management must have a deep and profounf ethical view.
I think that's why he's ignored in the U.S.

[Patrick]

Lafayette beat me to it. If management implements Kaizen as it is meant to be, layoffs do not factor into the equation. In fact, many firms implementing lean have taken the step of guaranteeing employment (very common in Japan). In return, a certain degree of flexibility is expected on the part of employees as job responsibilities evolve. I am personally involved with a firm that has spent the past three years getting "lean." Not a single employee has been laid off.

[Patrick]

oops -- meant to say evagrius.

[Lafayette]

evg: "It's typical of U.S. corporate management to use, without reflection, any trendy technique to further short-term profit at the expense of really having to think and act with integrity."

Corporate staff, we know, respond to incentives.

If we want companies to have "great" short-term results to impress Wall Street, then stock-options work marvellously well.

If we want companies to employ ethical governance then the staff (from the plutocrats at the top to the proletariats at the bottom) must be incentivated to do so.

How is that accomplished? By making sure that the job performance criteria are a mixed bag and that "governance" is one of the criteria, defined and measured from without the corporation.

It would also help if the stock-options or stock as part of compensation be spread throughout the organization ... and not simply stuck at the top.

If this requires legislation, then so be it. Elect the sort of politicians who will effect it.

[Bruce Hall]

There is no problem with Kaizen or 6-Sigma or any number of systematic attempts to improve business processes and product through incremental and continual improvement. What usually goes amok is management's impatience with the gradual results.

Of course, systematic improvement of a non-competitive product does not mean it will be competitive. Likewise, flawed manufacturing systems may be improved, but not become as good as another that is fundamentally different.

Innovation is often used interchangeably with improvement. They are not equivalent. The internet as a business tool means many things to different businesses. Some businesses simply see it as a better way to advertise, while others use it as a front-end for gathering orders. Innovative companies have used the internet as a way to completely redesign and automate their ordering system, change/integrate their product management system (inventory control and procurement), change their product offering (downloadable software/movies), and offer delivery tracking online.

While sophisticated web design analysis is available, even small businesses can use the free version of Google Analytics to see how their site is used and modify the design to fit the way their customers process the information and eventually order. Google, obviously, offers more advanced features if you want to pay for it.

The tools are there. It is our cultural impatience that seems to be the major obstacle in the way of using those tools effectively.

[Lafayette]

BH: "Innovative companies have used the internet as a way to completely redesign and automate their ordering system"

They “innovate”? They really and truly change the way they do business?

Or they simply take an existing sales channel (retail) and cut out the retailer, usurping the latter’s role. They are both manufacturer and retailer, just like companies used to have a local sales outlet in the factory that sold directly to customers.

That’s not innovating. That’s just business.

Let’s call a spade a spade. Innovating takes a lot more than “improving” the performance of a retail sales channel.

"It is our cultural impatience that seems to be the major obstacle in the way of using those tools effectively."

I remember this "story" and I do not know if it is true. But it could be.

In the 1980s a woman with HIV was taking a prescription drugs cocktail for her illness, which she bought at a local mall pharmacy using her credit card. She was surprised to get in her mailbox a flyer touting the advantages of a competitive drug.

How did they know her address? Of course, the credit card company sold the information to the pharmaceutical company selling the competitive drug.

Now, that is a matter of personal information of a highly confidential nature (at the time when America was going ballistic over AIDS) that is placed in the public domain. Just what are the limits of personal information that can be sold to third parties?

Some people will call that "data mining" or "sophisticated marketing tools". But, I ask: Just what legal limits are there to such techniques employed to "leverage sales"?

[Bruce Hall]

Lafayette,

I did not intent to say that "simply take an existing sales channel (retail) and cut out the retailer, usurping the latter’s role. They are both manufacturer and retailer, just like companies used to have a local sales outlet in the factory that sold directly to customers."

What I was saying was that they create a whole new business approach for themselves and create significant efficiencies in doing so. For example, by having customers fill out online forms rather than receiving mailed orders or orders over the telephone, the information is self-checked by the customer and no secondary handling of the data is needed by the company. That's an internal improvement.

The example I gave regarding changing products from physical objects to data streams is something that many companies in software and entertainment are attempting to do.

That is innovation. The nature of the product and the business transaction are changed... as is the internal support mechanism for processing data.

With regard to misuse of information. That is a problem with any unethical business regardless of how they transact their businesss.

With regard to cultural impatience, it is management that does not want to invest the necessary time or resources to fully realize the change potential. Do it quick and dirty and make me look good.

[NInjaplease]

Innovation is the opposite of best practices as it is "something different." Motorola, lover of six sigma, was about to lose its cell phone division until its engineering group put together the razor in a vacuum.

"In fact, many firms implementing lean have taken the step of guaranteeing employment (very common in Japan)."

I challenge you to name the "many firms." They sure as hell don't G.E. or any of the companies now run by former G.E. managers.

I cannot post about what I see first hand now, but lets just say that increasing productivity, as measured by products produced / headcount is the underlying goal behind every single initiative I've seen since last year.

Good marketing or actually FUNDING RESEARCH -- EVEN IF IT IS FOR CUSTOMER-DRIVEN PRODUCTS would produce FAR BETTER results than the headcount removal processes thinly veiled as Kaizen or 5S or whatever other crap a consultant is selling.

[Ninjaplease]

"The tools are there. It is our cultural impatience that seems to be the major obstacle in the way of using those tools effectively."

Dude, their goals are to find ways to cut headcount. They ARE achieving THOSE goals effectively using Kaizen tools as some sort of justification.

What I don't see is a before-after quality comparison---ever. All I see are fewer names on the phonelist and a "savings."

"Of course, systematic improvement of a non-competitive product does not mean it will be competitive. Likewise, flawed manufacturing systems may be improved, but not become as good as another that is fundamentally different."

"Of course, systematic improvement (EDUCATION) of a non-competitive LABORPOOL does not mean it will be competitive. Likewise, flawed manufacturing systems may be improved (AUTOMATED), but not become as CHEAP as another that is fundamentally CHEAPER."

[evagrius]

Ninjaplease

What you're talking about is "kaiaku" - literally, "change for the worse."

It has nothing to do with kaizen.

Your gripe is with your fellow Americans, not with a Japanese business approach that involves real ethical concern for everyone in a company, not just the top dogs or stockholders.

[Bruce Wilder]

I am not particularly sympathetic to "kaizen" as a form of religious faith. Regardless of the tenets of "kaizen" or any management philosophy, there are real, inherent problems, which accompany the improvement of productivity, including, in some business circumstances, the reality that, at the end of the day, increased productivity means that you need fewer resources to produce the same value/quantity of product. That's can be a serious problem; I commend the ethics of management teams, which take responsibility for all the consequences of progress, successfully. But, I recognize that not all will try, and even some of those, who try, will fail, and some of those, who do not try, will be exercising the age-old business wisdom of externalizing costs and risks. As Juan Cole wrote in another context, ""It isn't right, but, well, the US is run by cranky old rich white men, . . ."

[Bruce Wilder]

Bruce Hall, management's "impatience" or our "cultural impatience" in general could be a symptom of the information overload imposed by rapid change and re-engineering.

Re-thinking a process is an information and computing intensive task. In a management hierarchy, those higher in the hierarchy have no more hours in the day than those nearer the bottom, and they need the relief of reliable abstraction to condense and compact the information they receive.

To really understand an abstract communication, you have to know how the abstraction was "packed up". You have to figure out the details. Aaron Schwartz, in one of those legendary short essays of the web explained it briefly, here:
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/smartabstractions

He, and his commenters, said some provocative things about how and why excellent concepts, like kaizen, get turned into trendy and destructive fashions by people, who just learn to use the vocabulary, without learning how things work in a fundamental way. One of his commenters made the interesting point that salesmen in marketing organizations tend to be attuned to the emotional freight, without any technical or analytical awareness or interest.

[Bruce Hall]

Bruce Wilder:

I wouldn't argue against anything you said. My observation was that impatience was the reason "continuous improvement" is short-circuited in the U.S. and you have given some reasonable opinions as to the cause of the impatience.

Another reason is the quarterly profit report to investors who "want to see something" now!

But the reality is that competition is so intense that today's great product or process is quickly outdated by something different, better, cheaper. Otherwise, we'd all be driving truly perfect Model T's... continuously improved for 80 years. Well, maybe we are, but they are just called something else.

[evagrius]

Kaizen isn't some religious faith. I don't see how anyone could pick that up.
It is an attitude towards work and towards life that one should always strive to improve. I suppose that could be interpreted as faith by some.
However, in the U.S., that attitude isn't really prevalent even though one would think so from appearance.
What's taken over is the notion that profit equals improvement equals quality.

[Lafayette]

BH: "What I was saying was that they create a whole new business approach for themselves and create significant efficiencies in doing so."

Yes, but this is not the case.

They do not create a "whole new" business approach. They simply improve an old one. This is the distinction that I am trying to make. (It takes a lonnngggg experience in business to be able to recognize processes or technologies that are "truly innovational" and those that are simply "new and improved".)

The American dialect of English has corrupted the meaning of words ... largely because of the media that seeks always new ways (meaning words) to explain things that are not really new at all. They exaggerate for effect to get attention.

The result is that people become accustomed to the inter-changeability of words, with an accompanying loss of meaning.

Innovation is something that we recognize sometimes decades after it happens. It is not an attribute that is “announced” employing that hallowed name) by a hyper-active marketeer script writer.

Some examples of innovation: The internal combustion engine to propel an automobile thereby displacing horse drawn carriages. Atomic plants that harness the molecule to develop energy thereby obsoleting the carbon-molecule as a fuel.

Both of these are examples of where a technology broke with the past and substituted the previous one. The internal combustion engine substituted and did not improve upon horses.

I happen to think the distinction is important.( You may not agree.) But why? Because we must identify WHERE we want to innovative and WHERE we want to improve. And, then throw the resources at each to achieve the innovations and changes that (1) serve well customers and (2) generate durable employment. These two interlinked criteria are primordial to economic development.

Mark Twain: "Differences of opinions are what make for horse races".

[Lafayette]

BH: "But the reality is that competition is so intense that today's great product or process is quickly outdated by something different, better, cheaper. Otherwise, we'd all be driving truly perfect Model T's..."

Yes, particularly the competition between capital and labor. And, if it continues, you are going to be buying your super-Model T's from China.

Technological advancement is fine. But, we have not given it its proper weight objectively - because in the past it has always served our purposes.

The paradigm is changing as globalization teaches us how technology can also be a competitive disservice. Competition is a double-edges sword that cuts both ways, for and against us.

So let’s make sure that our competitive edge is sharp. For that we need to make investments in the enhancement of people skills, competencies and talents. And, that aint gonna come cheap nor all by itself.

The state must get into the act by subsidizing certain retraining programs as well as, at a university level, incentivizing students into studies that are a scorching need in America.

Finally, can't we just for once put Wall Street on a backburner and start focusing on long-term objectives?

We lost ourselves when we blindly fixated on short-term profits, which brought lucrative stock-option incentives for some contemporaneous with painful job dislocations for others. The consequence? A nation where the social fracture between the haves and the have-nots is widening daily.

That is a sure sign of a social earthquake in the making.

[Lafayette]

evagrius: "It has nothing to do with kaizen."

Ninjaplease may be ranting, but kaiaku has EVERYTHING to do with kaizen. It is its evil twin brother.

Why is it that it took ages for Japan to react to its dire economic consequences of the 1990, from which it is just exiting? Ditto Europe.

The contrast with American sentiment in the matter is worth considering. Both Japan and Europe demonstrate cultural values where the general welfare of its citizens is of primary value - and not the well-being of a comparatively select few at the top of the heap.

This sort of economic solidarity is paramount in maintaining the social fabric of a nation. Without solidarity, the social fabric of a nation is torn asunder.

A French economic journalist once put it another way. He said, during a debate, that "America cannot afford unemployment because there is no safety net", as there is in Europe. What he meant is that people are incentivized by fear to find another job since the dole is short and sweet, unlike in Europe.

I am not sure that I believe overly much in the European safety-net, which is dreadfully expensive in terms of state budgets. The consequence of this is high state maintenance expenditures for its national debt. Meaning the money cannot be spent elsewhere to create jobs.

But, what is the American attitude towards high unemployment? That it is par for course and what matters is who wins much more than who plays? What shortsightedness.

There must be another alternative. Like this: If companies prioritize their investment in R&D to develop new products, they should also prioritize their investment in personnel to maintain their competitiveness. Looking to offshore production, because it is no longer competitive, is proof of pure management negligence. They should have none better.

Off with their heads.

[evagrius]

"Why is it that it took ages for Japan to react to its dire economic consequences of the 1990, from which it is just exiting? Ditto Europe.

The contrast with American sentiment in the matter is worth considering. Both Japan and Europe demonstrate cultural values where the general welfare of its citizens is of primary value - and not the well-being of a comparatively select few at the top of the heap."

And I dare say that when kaiaku rises up like a Godzilla in the U.S. as it faces its dire economic consequences, it won't be just entertaining.

[Bruce Hall]

Lafayette,

Your laments are shared by many workers, but the reality is that with global competition and global corporations, the constant shifting of customers from one company to another, from one product to another, will continue. Corporations that have had an insular view of the world will be in trouble.

The state does not have an obligation to subsidize the education of individuals any more than it is already doing with free public education through high school and support of state universities. Individuals, just like corporations, must address their own level of competitive skills. If I choose to delay gratification of personal wants such as tricked out cars or large boats or a huge home so that I can afford to educate myself for future competition, then I feel no responsibility toward someone who has a much shorter term outlook on life. Do you feel responsible to bail out corporations that focus on quarterly profits instead of long term competitiveness?

Social solidarity is achieved when all of the individuals involved carry their own responsibilities toward the society. That includes the guys who can't wait for the shift to end before they go out for burgers and beer with their buddies as much as the guy who works 14 hour days in his own business to make a go of things.

The latter are the guys who will innovate instead of just improve. Innovation is more than just inventing a new product. It is also applying existing technology or information or skills in a way that has eluded others. That's different from simply improving what you've always done to get a slightly improved version of what you've always gotten.

[Lafayette]

BH: "the constant shifting of customers from one company to another, from one product to another, will continue.”

Perhaps that is the perspective from your point of view. It is not the same from mine.

Yes, Europe is well hooked by the Internet retail tsunami, but they are buying from known companies that used to have a high street shop. (And have significant retail experience.) Those shops in smaller cities are closed and the retail marketing, sales and customer fulfillment are all in-house ... some dreary warehouse cum office out in the boonies.

They have readily accepted nonetheless Chinese products because the quality is good enough and the prices further their purchasing power.

Europeans buy more or less from the same sources over their lives. Change for the sake of change is more an American attribute than a European one.

Besides, the same rule applies unfortunately for labor. If you loose a job in Bordeaux, you don't go looking for one in Berlin. People putter around looking for something close to home. Americans are by nature more mobile, but it is also a cultural value. I heard it expressed recently as; "You do what ya gotta do". This is very simple and sane advice.

It is unfortunately not European, however. Europe is only just waking up from Dreamland (markets, business, and industries coddled behind tariff barriers that started coming down a decade ago). It is a rude awakening.

NB: In the US, in any given year, the number of people changing homes equals the population of Spain.

[Lafayette]

BH: "Social solidarity is achieved when all of the individuals involved carry their own responsibilities toward the society."

This was the expected Yank response.

All the people, all the time, cannot carry all their own responsibilities. It is humanly impossible.

You are first a member of a community. How many people do you know live well alone on an island? Where is your understanding of the division of labor?

We are all cogs in a great economic wheel ... and the individual responsibility bit, that passes as a justification for amassing indecent amounts of money, simply doesn't hold water.

You may THINK you are an individual, but we are all in fact just consumers and workers trying to make a go of it. That common identity means that we are first and foremost members of an economic community and also a social community (whether at the local, state or federal level).

When that community plays by rules such as "All players are equal (in opportunity) but some players are more equal than others", then what results is economic unfairness.

And, economic unfairness, America has in spades.

[evagrius]

Lafayette;

Vous etes trop catholique!

You're definitely reflecting cultural values that are in complete contrast to the American social myth of "self-suffiency", ( that myth has fueled the so-called welfare revolution resulting in, yes, less welfare but more poverty).

[Lafayette]

evg: "You're definitely reflecting cultural values that are in complete contrast to the American social myth of "self-suffiency""

I think I am trying to reintroduce them.

America and Americans once had a common sense of purpose and community. The original colonists and pioneers did indeed help one another out of a common cause, that of survival.

America developed into the economic giant it is today. But, somewhere along the way it lost its sense of communal destiny. Of fair share. Of help for those cannot help themselves.

Maybe this was due to excesses in past welfare systems dispensing too much for so little in results. A lifetime spent on welfare is not easy-street. It's still hell, but an agreeable hell.

Or, more likely it is due to a sociological phenomenon that is little understood. The more you give people, the more they want.

The media created celebrities out of the rich. These people are taken as role models. The media adulates them, they are idolized and the celebrities employ the tactic to leverage further wealth. It is a pathetic manipulation of the poor.

And all this in one of the most religious countries on earth.

To wit: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24, quoting Jesus Christ)

[Bruce Hall]

E & L

There is a fine line between social responsibility and personal irresponsibility.

You cannot demand innovation and improvement from just some of the people and accept reliance on government handouts and irresponsibility from others.

No one is saying ignore the plight of homeless or helpless, but one cannot demand business seek success in a competitive field through innovation and improvement and then say individuals don't have to do the same.

Don't get socialist on me. We know that has n't worked out so well in so many places.

So back to the original idea that Kaizen is faulty because we don't implement it well....

[Ninjaplease]

Do you know the immense irony here?

I tell you about the negative results of so called "Kaizen" processes.

I'm then told, no no, that's not kaizen, that's something else--kaizen is fantastic, kaizen is ideal, there is nothing wrong with kaizen, kaizen is sound!

When I complain about the negative effects of so called "Globalization" or "Free Trade,"

I'm told that what I see first hand isn't real, and that "Everyone will be better off in the long run," and that better service jobs are coming or information jobs are coming-----But none of the supporters of these two ideas claim that what's being implemented "Isn't Free Trade" or "Isn't really globalization, it's something else."

[cm]

Lafayette: As for "creating new jobs" -- some time ago I reported how I met a guy doing the checkout in one local grocery store doing the same in another, and it turned out, he is working in both part-time. Now I saw some other girl I know from the former store doing the checkout in the latter too. I have not yet asked her, so I don't know whether she works in both stores too, or whether she moved. If so, there you have two people holding two of those "newly created" jobs in the Retail category. Probably both without benefits (I didn't ask about that for fear of rubbing it in).

[cm]

ninjaplease: That type of irony is lost on many, I'm afraid.

[Lafayette]

BH: "Don't get socialist on me. We know that hasn't worked out so well in so many places."

This remark is typical of the prejudices of most Americans as regards social solidarity. The brainwashing is almost complete. Nice job, well done, Fox News.

Come to Europe and see for yourself what "socialism" has done for its people. We live well here and, some would say at a higher level than Americans:
1) Some of the best Health Care systems in the world (according to the WHO)
2) Education to the university level that does not require significant debt to achieve
3) Secondary schooling of which students score higher than the US (according to latest PISA studies)
4) Crime rates (particularly drug usage) at some significant percentage lower than stateside
5) Neonatal birth rates far lower than in the US
6) A full compliment of ground transportation systems that are state-of-the-art (rail, air and road)
7) Natural calamities that are attended to immediately in order to restore order, safety and return the affected population to thier homes.

I could go on, but the above is sufficient to make the point that the state MUST invest in both infrastructure and human development for both an economy and a society to advance - and particularly for that society to be fair and equitable in the distribution of wealth.

The totalitarian socialism behind the Iron Curtain is long gone. And nobody here is intimating that America junk its reliance on capitalism's cash cow. That would be foolish.

But some (me included) are suggesting the America does correct the inherent unfairness in the present distribution of wealth and that will take significant changes in the higher level marginal tax rates.

This in no obvious way stifles individual initiative. (Venture capital is alive and well in Europe.) It simply assures that not all the spoils go to a comparative few.

[evagrius]

Ninjaplease;

You really should look up W.E. Demings on Google and read his 14 points of management, ( which can be considered the theoretical foundation of kaizen), and then reflect on how well or how poorly U.S. management has followed them. Remember, all 14 points have to be done, leave one out and the whole thing falls apart and it isn't kaizen.
Demings reflects an American value system long vanished, one that was forged in the Great Depression. I don't think he would have considered himself a socialist but he was one in the deepest sense of the word- a person who cared about the social bonds that link us together and without which we are just vicious predators.
I think it comes down to how one regards human nature, human beings. If one regards human existence as a long, Hobbesian struggle, then one will see human beings as inherently selfish, lazy, greedy and apathetic who must be pushed into actions through the threat of starvation etc;
If one regards human existence as a tragic struggle to attain and be the good, then one will focus on the ways to overcome individual suffering through mutual compassion, charity and support.
The notion of self-sufficiency, so well touted by conservatives and the theoretical foundation of welfare reform is based on the former notion. That's why, while it has succeeded in lowering the welfare rolls, it has not decreased but rather increaed poverty in the U.S. That's why kaizen doesn't work in the U.S.
It takes seeing human beings as inherently mutually dependent creatures who struggle mutually to benefit each other, not just oneself in order to lower poverty or make kaizen an effective management process.
I don't think Americans are sufficiently mature enough to do it.

[Bruce Hall]

A great amount of the poverty so well discussed her is inherent in two sub-cultures: the urban Black sub-culture with its stubborn clinging to dysfunctional ways so there won't be the accusation of "acting white"; and the recent wave of uneducated, illegal, Mexican and Latin American immigrants who don't pay taxes, but expect... and receive... social services.

The interesting thing is that the Hispanic sub-culture is entrepreneurial enough to be creating some level of wealth in a reasonably short time... they don't appear to be afraid of hard work and long hours whether in legal or illegal endeavors.

Europe has long rested on its golden age laurels and, since WWII, enjoyed the relative freedom from the expense of large military forces with the U.S. footing a large portion of the bill for the continent's security.

We'll see how this "holier than thou" attitude holds up over the next two decades as Muslim and eastern European immigrants become a larger minority in western Europe. The greater ills of population diversity are about to tug at the social fabric of previously homogenous cultures and the influx of poorly educated, culturally different people who demand your respect, but are not interested in participating in your social philosophies, may make you consider that everyone should carry their fair share instead of asking for your share. The establishment of an official underclass and its members who are content to be there may change your tune. Allah Akbar!

Good luck, boys. I don't share your sympathetic nature for such nonsense. Anybody with half a brain can succeed in the U.S. At least enough to live decently. Yes, the children and the infirm need social support and heaven knows we pay enough taxes for that. Of course, a lot of that is wasted on people who simply want a free ride. But that's not their fault. It's the fault of those who have trained them to expect it.

[Lafayette]

cm: "If so, there you have two people holding two of those "newly created" jobs in the Retail category."

You being sarcastic? ; ^ )

America spent the last thirty years resting on its laurels without thinking one single moment that the paradigm might change.

That's gross negligence and disrespect for what history teaches us: The only real constant in time is change. History, if you will look at even briefly, teaches you that, since human bipeds exited the savannahs of Africa, history has repeatedly changed and changed again, always presenting new challenges in different ways. The human species has always survived and advanced.

I have said it before here and I will say it again: It took decades to get into this mess and unless America realizes that it is sick then it cannot even think of a cure. (Ask any doctor to confirm that axiom.) It will take a least a decade to get out of the s**t.

What does it all mean? It means significant dislocations in lifestyles, just as you remark anecdotally. Some people are literally going to fall through the cracks, because there is no safety net worth talking about. Whilst the plutocrats wring their hands fretfully, agonizing over where to invest their billions to earn even further billions.

And, what do the plutocrats in Washington, that YOU elected, have to say about this? They want you to believe that "al Qaeda is the problem". Me arse. Eight years have gone down the drain listening to the idiocies of those wankers.

We've been hoodwinked ... and most don't even realize it. We thought the good times would last forever.

Forever is a long, long time ...

[Lafayette]

And for anyone who thinks plutocracy is something new, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daddy_Warbucks

It's been around for ages. The above is a characterization that was spawned at a time of American history when everything was going wrong, the Depression (as it was called).

Some people will always gravitate to the top of the economic pyramid, out of gumption or out of simple good luck, or both.

In either case, that doesn't mean that they deserve any special privilege. They made their money in a society which makes us all members of the same economic community. What that community allowed them to gain, they should be prepared to pay back. Handsomely.

Once upon a time that was thought to be “the American way”. Once upon a time …

[Ninjaplease]

"Anybody with half a brain can succeed in the U.S. At least enough to live decently. "

Except if you're interested in programming, IT, manufacturing, or if you get a serious injury since your two part-time retail clerk jobs don't pay medical insurance.

[cm]

Lafayette: I'm going to respond point for point. Re "socialism", as a point of caution consider the Warsaw-Pact version thereof. What (in your terms) "Fox News" has done successfully is not so much rebutting Northwestern-EU style social design, but conflating "communist"-style totalitarianism with any other type of non-individualist, non-everybody-dies-alone socialized policy scheme.

[cm]

Bruce Hall: How about the so-called "white trash"? Poverty, disadvantage, and marginalization are not exclusive hallmarks of funky "minorities". Propaganda would like to let us believe it's a matter of racial or "(sub)cultural" inferiority, but I think not.

[cm]

Bruce Hall: As an afterthought, I'm well aware of the "acting white" thing. It is an impediment, but not the root cause of the calamity, and as much as one can criticize it, more of an identity-defining reaction to externally imposed discrimiation.

In Germany, which was not a Middle-Eastern or Northern-African colonial power or major player, recent history of dealing with large immigrant populations starts after WW2. Due to a post-war lack of working-age men, (West) Germany "imported" mostly male workers from impoverished European nations and Turkey. While welcomed for their labor, they were socially ostracized (the Turks more so than the "Europeans"), and with the "help" of the language barrier (German being a quite difficult language), and corresponding to the degree of being ostracized, they retracted and formed their own communities. Discrimination is more "cultural" than racial I'd say. I'm not aware of a concept of "acting German", though several Turkish women have been killed by their kin for engaging in relationships with German men rather than arranged husbands "at home".

[cm]

Lafayette: I was being at most mildly sarcastic. It was in response to your suggestion that spending money (and hence resources) on welfare-style benefits crowds out creation of new jobs. Just to convey some idea what the "new" jobs look like. It's not like, by appearances, more checkouts are manned in those stores now. Some of the people I saw previously appear to have been replaced, presumably in (small?) part by the double-part-timers. Whether they quit or they were let go I don't know and I'm not going to ask.

I didn't elect any of the DC plutocrats, as I'm not eligible to vote. If I were, I could contribute to SF Bay Area reps, and you can imagine for how much that would count.

[cm]

evagrius: I think part of ninja's point is analogical to pointing out to a resident of a Warsaw-Pact "communist state", read Marx, this is not what he described when talking about communism.

[evagrius]

Bruce Hall;

Well I hope you "act white" all the time because if you don't, you're in serious trouble according to you.

You do realize, of course, that nearly one in four children in the U.S. are living in households in poverty?
You do realize, of course, that a large number of these children are neither black or Hispanic but "white" as you would term them?
The other children are, of course, not "white", being either Hispanic, black, Asian or some other minority.
In any case, do you think these children deserve the poverty they're in?
After all, it's not their fault.

I think you don't have "half-a-heart", since you obviously don't look around and see what's there in front of you.

I take it that you don't "expect" any social services if and when you may need them in future since you have, in your deep wisdom, anticipated all the eventual circumstances you may encounter. I take it that you've never received any, not even as a child, and that you're obviously a "self-made" man, a "self-sufficient" person. If this is so, you've actually impoverished rather than enriched yourself.

[evagrius]

cm;

That may be true but he shouldn't blame a management philosophy that wasn't even being applied. He should rather be angry at those who misuse the term.
Of course, those idiots couldn't care less whether or not he's angry at them.

[Ninjaplease]

"Of course, those idiots couldn't care less whether or not he's angry at them."

They will when I leave and the house of cards falls ontop of them.

[cm]

ninja: I can only guess, and as IT you may indeed sit at a more critical juncture of the inner workings of the business, but you would be surprised how much of corporate infrastructure is "optional" in the sense that its absence or degradation will simply be absorbed (to a certain extent only of course, excluding e.g. complete breakdown of email or applications needed for regulatory book-keeping or fundamental business operation). Many of the things and processes impacted will just not be done (being themselves to an extent "optional"), the money will keep coming in, and another house of cards will be erected meanwhile.

Also what sometimes (often?) happens after such a wake-up call is that the importance of the affected process is finally recognized, and those who stay will receive better treatment and perhaps long overdue raises/bonuses. In few to no cases I would expect that the management on whose head the house of cards supposedly falls will be hurt.

I don't mean to rub it in, even though I probably manage. I used to think in similar ways and have met enough people who around quitting time issued matching vengeful rhetoric, but often while the resulting impact could be seen by those who know where to look, but did not become apparent to "business drivers". In the end one is angering oneself, and it provides material for further frustration when the "payback" doesn't materialize.

Me, as a SW engineer and given my quite visible product area, my departure would be quite disruptive, but I have reason to believe that appointing a competent successor the business unit would be able to recover to a level sufficient to basically sustain the area within few months and then further evolve that area after let's say a half-year, during which time business impact would be limited and not critical. Our group has gone through a number of very disruptive (voluntary and no harsh feelings) departures and replacements, and here we are, carrying the torch along.

I heard of only one case where during a layoff "some IT dude" was let go, and later the same day an utter network failure took down operations. They called him at home asking him back, and after giving them some spiel along the lines of "remember I'm no longer working for you and this is my hourly fee", he was hired back with a substantial raise. Not sure about his buddies of whom no doubt there were a few. That's probably what one would like to imagine, with or without the going back part.

[Ninjaplease]

cm, I'm a hardware engineer (embedded & system level electronics, not mechanical stuff.)

Our marketing specs are awfully thin for a very niche market, so my true value add is to interpret them, meet with customers (something that marketing does not do) and create detailed engineering specs--then go and design the electronics.)

The design part they could have done in India, but knowing what makes sense and is practical for a niche market to support niche marketing is another story.

I'm not packing my bags yet, but change is needed and long overdue.

[cm]

ninja: Thanks for clarifying. The situation with marketing, which should perhaps be more appropriately be called "PR", sounds familiar. With hardware the bullshit stops earlier as when it doesn't work or perform, a batch of junior people cannot just "fix it" for a particular customer situation.

The notion that what matters is not just knowing how to do it, but also what and why (and perhaps more importantly what not and why not) is difficult to "get" for those pushing around numbers and judging whether you don't cost too much, regardless of any futile "process improvement" efforts trying to get your know-why onto paper or into a computer.

[Bruce Hall]

evagrius,

I suggest you read "Freakonomics" if you haven't done so already.

Maybe you should also Google Bill Cosby on "not acting white" and see what he has to say.

You just don't get it. We have black and Hispanic sub-cultures (clearly not representing all blacks and Hispanics just as Appalachian "hillbillys" are not representing all whites) that are clearly dysfunctional and not interested in the values of the majority culture. 15-year olds having children and then becoming grandmothers at 30 and great-grandmothers at 45. Until basic attitudes start changing, all of the well-meaning programs are fingers in the dikes.

Now you tell me the answer. Steven Levitt wisely pointed out that crime rates fell dramatically about 17 years after abortion was approved by the Supreme Court. That's because so many future criminals were not born. Would you suggest an expansion of that effort? Sex education is a laugh and the results are laughable. So you would propose an ever expanding money giveaway?

It only goes to prove H.L. Mencken's point that the world's population is growing while the total intelligence is remaining constant. Stupid 15-year olds are birthing stupid offspring. The cycle is intact.

How would you apply Kaizen to that? Come on, now. Busing didn't work. The stupid ones just got moved around while losing sleep and time in class. Perpetual welfare just made larger stupid families live more comfortably without making them change their dysfunctional ways.

Have I broken enough politically correct taboos for you now?

The reason social programs haven't fixed social problems is because they aren't social problems; they are people problems. How will you fix those people? Can you fix them? How will the sophisticated and brilliant northwestern Europeans fix their Muslims? As long as people cling to dysfunctional ways that make them cultural misfits, they will remain at the bottom of the economic rungs... or criminals.

[cm]

Bruce Hall: After offering your diatribes, let's hear your suggestions how to address existing problems, even if it takes us further off-topic.

[Bruce Hall]

My original points were pretty straight-forward... we were discussing Kaizen and innovation versus improvement. The subject got sidetracked by a few who had a social agenda to wit: Kaizen is a tool of the corrupt capitalists who use it to oppress the working class... Bupa et al.

My "diatribe" was that the "save the poor" federation was wasting its time and everyone else's by blaming a proven tool for the fact that dysfunctional people don't prepare themselves for the world as it exists... as opposed to the way they would like it to exist.

Some economist... not at this site, however... said that poverty is the natural state of mankind. It is only through struggle that mankind lifts itself out of that state... and some simply won't. The U.S. offers people the greatest chance in the world to lift themselves out of economic deprivation... yet there are whole segments who chronically reject the effort, the struggle, that it takes to do what is necessary.

Kaizen is not the problem; business is not the problem. The problem is that there are those like bupa who believe that everyone except those who fail to advance economically are the problem. My solution is to reject bupa's position. My solution for those whose only goal in life is to have sex, bring kids who they can't care for into the world, and live off the largesse of the state is... get sterilized. That's sounds like good Kaizen to me. By and large, it will greatly improve society.

For the rest of the society, individual Kaizen is a good practice as well. But how many of those laid-off workers bothered to improve their skills and make themselves more valuable to either their current employer or potential employers? It's difficult to work full time and take some night courses... that's how I put myself through college... Bachelor's and Masters degrees. I would have loved to have had parents who could have paid my way through. I would have loved to had the expensive car and great clothes. But I didn't have the the upper or middle class advantages, so I did it myself. And bupa says I should feel sorry for those who'd rather get a high school education and a low-skilled job and then end up scraping by. Bullshit.

People are the problem, not Kaizen or the companies that use it or something similar to improve their products or processes. People who watch the clock and run for the bar when their shift is over. Or people who just run for the bar and don't even bother with trying to get a shift.

Sure there are kids who get a raw deal from their stupid parents. Not Kaizen's fault, bupa. So what's the answer? Until the state penalizes people for being stupid... there is no good answer... only a big money pit. And there isn't enough money to take care of all of the problems these people create. Bupa seems to think there is.

So to be back on-topic, cm, Kaizen, process improvement, 6-sigma, and all of the other incremental improvement tools do work within their intended framework. But they cannot improve a train to fly to the moon. Innovation, let's say something like a wireless transmission of electrical power (not a wireless computer network) so that all tools and appliances can be portable without the limitations of batteries, that's what makes the great changes in the marketplace and moves us to new directions.

Satisfied, cm?

[evagrius]

Bruce Hall;

Obviously you're quite angry and frustrated.

You need to read a little bit about U.S. history.

Go look up the Orcinus web site.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/01/eliminationism-in-america-vii.html

There's a fascinating series ( Eliminationism in America) there. Part VII, After Sundown explores what happened to black people after the Civil War. Did you know that blacks were more geographically spread, had indeed begun to move to vastly different areas but were essentially forced into ghettoes and tenements by racial exclusion laws affecting housing and jobs. That this policy was not only directed at black people but at "visible" minorities throughout the U.S. As the poster asks; why aren't there any more black people in
Seattle or Idaho?
The same thing affected the Hispanic and Asian populations.

I guess those people just never acted "white enough" even though when they did and became successful, they were driven out of town.

[Bruce Hall]

evagrius, why would you jump to the conclusion that I was angry or frustrated?

I simply pointed out that your irrational concern for people who cling to behavioral patterns that are economically dysfunctional is a dysfunctional concern itself.

I also pointed out that these behavior patterns that are economically dysfunctional are not racial, but relate to sub-cultures affecting blacks, Hispanics, whites, (yes Asians, too) and that until these sub-culture attitudes change or are abandoned, pouring money at your concerns is irrational.

I happen to live in a racially mixed (diverse is so trite) neighborhood where the common denominator is a high regard for education and behaviors that are socially responsible. Perhaps you live in a similar neighborhood so that you can understand, by example, that to which I refer.

But the data do not lie. The two largest sub-cultures with educational/social deficiencies are blacks and Hispanics. Asians, by and large, have exceeded whites in educational achievement... an indication of functional behavior and sub-culture attitudes... despite long-term discrimination in U.S. history (coolie labor et al) which was exacerbated during WWII (Japanese).

You, apparently, have a problem with the notion that all sub-cultures are not created equal and that dysfunctional behavior must be fixed at the individual level. I'm sorry if you are guilt-ridden that you may have achieved some measure of economic success while others with dysfunctional behaviors have not. I don't share that guilt.

In my area, Detroit, I have repeatedly written to the 5 major universities within 60 miles, all with student populations exceeding 30,000, that rather than give special preferences for academically ill-prepared students to attend their institutions, that they should develop "hands-on" programs with local school systems such as Detroit's, to help improve the quality of education and help students with dysfunctional attitudes toward education to see the long-term value of an education.

The University of Michigan did actually do that, but rather than focus on Detroit where the problem is acute, chose Southfield, as middle-class suburb with a large black population whose students were not at risk. This was an example of the social defenders not putting their money where there mouth was.

So, no, I'm not frustrated and angry, as you would depict, but rather disappointed that you and your guilt-ridden counterparts have only one dysfunctional solution... put my money where your mouth is.

The opportunity is there, but those who cling to stupidly dysfunctional ways will never realize the rewards.

[evagrius]

I don't see where you get the notion that I'm guilt-ridden, perhaps for the same reason you don't see yourself as angry and frustrated.

But I don't think you've thought deeply enough as to why the sub-cultures you describe as dysfunctional are dysfunctional. You'd like to put the onus on them rather than examine the total causation involved which ranges from their own particular cultural expressions to the larger dominant culture's refusal to see itself objectively as not necessarily being the height of perfection.

Did you read or at leat look at the articles on Eliminationism in America?

Those articles, especially the one about Sundown Towns in the U.S. explain quite a bit as to why those sub-cultures have more dysfunction than should be the case.

Acknowledging past behavior is not an act of guilt-ridden conscience, it's an act of changing one's attitude. Don't confuse the one with the other.

As for Asians who are often help up as a "model minority", you really should look a little deeper. The term itself is quite misleading, ( are people from India "white" or Asian, for example). While some Chinese have been successful, not all have and often for the same reasons as other sub-cultures.The most recent Chinese immigrants, those not from Hong Kong,have often ended up being trapped as much any other group in dysfunctional situations. Phillipinos have also experienced the same thing. Those who immigrated bringing skills and high education have done all right, those with less skills have ended up replicating much of the same behavior as in the Phillipines. The one group that does seem to have established themselves quite well, the Japanese, have been in the U.S. the longest and endured quite a bit of suffering as you well know.
Blacks, on the other hand, as well as Native Americans and Hispanics to a lesser degree, have endured much more discrimination and prejudice. Don't tell me that these groups after 1965 could just pick themselves up by their bootstraps , shrug off the past with a shrug and just plow right into successful middle class lives with no pain, no trauma, no memory.
I agree that real affirmative action should be at the beginning level of basic education. But, as you know, schools in the U.S. receive most of their financing from property taxes so, poorer school districts have far less resources to bring to the problem than rich ones, even with federal funds, and guess who mainly lives in poorer school districts.
Your example about the university focusing on a middle-class suburb rather than a poor one is telling but federal financing of the project may have had as much to do with it as anything else.
Acknowledging the past, remembering the past, is not indulging in guilt. Acknowledging the present and seeking to change incorrect perceptions of the present is not indulging in guilt.

[cm]

Bruce Hall: My primary beef with your diatribes was your postulation, or at least strong suggestion, that poverty is prety much exclusively a consequence of people being dysfunctional, specifically citing "non-white" subcultures. Perhaps you define dysfunction as "failure to attain prosperity", but the common meaning of the term is something else.

[cm]

Bruce Hall: After reading your new comments, I figure your system of reasoning is internally consistent, and we may have too little common ground upon which to conduct a fruitful discussion.

Having said that, there is still systemic discrimination built into the whole society, and assuming it is fair enough to say that legally condoned discrimination was replaced by "equal opportunity" sometime in the 60's, that's something like 1.5 generations ago (hey but then perhaps you consider one generation to be 15 years), which is by no means a long time.

Discrimination does neither start nor end with excluding somebody from a business transaction because of markers identified by the law (race, gender, religion, ...), but it is embedded into a whole system of de facto segregational dynamics that are as you observe driven from both sides.

Aside from general doubts about today's quality of US K-12 schools, at least judging by what I'm hearing here in California, schools in different districts are of different "quality", and home prices scale accordingly. The daycare and school "quality" is in part because of differences in funding, but also because of different levels of parent donations/contributions that I'm hearing are solicited aggressively, and because different parent populations can impart more or less intellectual and cultural skills on their kids, and eduation quality is substantially a function of student mix, and what teachers the school can (thus?) attract, also in combination with funding.

Then we can go on with tuition cost in higher ed. It substantially comes down to affluence and money increasingly being the gateway to opportunity for many, even though not all.

When a cohort of students has gone through low-quality K-12, I don't see how anything else but weakening entrance requirements or preference/quota systems can give them a second shot at education.

Same thing with women in Germany -- public institutions have affirmative-action-style quota rules which have been very controversial, but apparently that's the only thing that helps in breaking up the proliferation of old-boys networks and giving qualified women a chance, at the inevitable expense of some collateral damage, e.g. where qualified men are rejected from a position because the women's quota is empty.

But of course, one can also take the stand that only test-score-defined merit or track record should count, regardless of whether somebody was systemically disadvantaged in obtaining it. When a group of people are systematically excluded from positions where they can build merit, it is quite convenient to say later we would take these people but we have to look at merit, esp. when one is on the "safe" side.

[Bruce Hall]

cm,

I believe that the specific common ground we have with regard to "societal Kaizen" is that improved education and the potential for individual self-improvement is the only real basis for destroying the cycle of dependency that characterize some sub-cultures.

Despite that underlying agreement, I believe that we do not share a common philosophy on how to implement the improvement.

From my perspective, the change must be made early on, not at the point of competing for college admissions. There has not been enough emphasis in educating these subcultures on the value of education... real money in the pocket value... and how to get there from here. Rather the focus has been on changing the curriculae over and over, hoping to find a magic formula... and ignoring that fact that unless individual attitudes toward education are altered, any alteration of the educational offering is mostly wasted effort.

That is the reason I have been so vocal with our local universities to use their resources (including student interns) to help local schools to:

1. provide non-curriculum information to students and their families concerning the how's and why's of getting from inner-city to inner-circle.
2. to critically assess the local schools' approach to gaining the attention and involvement of the parents
3. to help local schools develop individualized "game plans" for students with ongoing reinforcement such as campus visits, introduction to various academic disciplines and what those careers are all about, and supplementing the standard curriculum with science or math or social studies "specials"... the "wow factors" that these kids never see and could help light a fire of understanding and enthusiasm under them.

There is no social program or school program that is a magic bullet, but there are efforts that can make individuals want something their parents don't have and show them how to get it. If they affect even 20% of the students positively, the effort will be more valuable than letting unprepared and unqualified students into a competitive academic situation where they will fail... simply to say the opportunity was given.

Kaizen focuses on the problem to determine the nature of the solution. Throwing more money at schools when the problem is the students' subculture is throwing money away.

Steven Levitt, professor of economics at the University of Chicago, pointed out that it really didn't make any difference if a student from a poorly performing school was chosen to go to a better performing school or had to stay at the poorly performing school. Their academic achievements were, by and large, the same. The key variable is that they "wanted" to go to the better school because they believed it would help their education. They already had a positive attitude toward education, so they performed well regardless of the school they attended.

Fix the subculture; fix the individual's attitude. Kaizen is good.

[Bruce Hall]

cm,

I believe that the specific common ground we have with regard to "societal Kaizen" is that improved education and the potential for individual self-improvement is the only real basis for destroying the cycle of dependency that characterize some sub-cultures.

Despite that underlying agreement, I believe that we do not share a common philosophy on how to implement the improvement.

From my perspective, the change must be made early on, not at the point of competing for college admissions. There has not been enough emphasis in educating these subcultures on the value of education... real money in the pocket value... and how to get there from here. Rather the focus has been on changing the curriculae over and over, hoping to find a magic formula... and ignoring that fact that unless individual attitudes toward education are altered, any alteration of the educational offering is mostly wasted effort.

That is the reason I have been so vocal with our local universities to use their resources (including student interns) to help local schools to:

1. provide non-curriculum information to students and their families concerning the how's and why's of getting from inner-city to inner-circle.
2. to critically assess the local schools' approach to gaining the attention and involvement of the parents
3. to help local schools develop individualized "game plans" for students with ongoing reinforcement such as campus visits, introduction to various academic disciplines and what those careers are all about, and supplementing the standard curriculum with science or math or social studies "specials"... the "wow factors" that these kids never see and could help light a fire of understanding and enthusiasm under them.

There is no social program or school program that is a magic bullet, but there are efforts that can make individuals want something their parents don't have and show them how to get it. If they affect even 20% of the students positively, the effort will be more valuable than letting unprepared and unqualified students into a competitive academic situation where they will fail... simply to say the opportunity was given.

Kaizen focuses on the problem to determine the nature of the solution. Throwing more money at schools when the problem is the students' subculture is throwing money away.

Steven Levitt, professor of economics at the University of Chicago, pointed out that it really didn't make any difference if a student from a poorly performing school was chosen to go to a better performing school or had to stay at the poorly performing school. Their academic achievements were, by and large, the same. The key variable is that they "wanted" to go to the better school because they believed it would help their education. They already had a positive attitude toward education, so they performed well regardless of the school they attended.

Fix the subculture; fix the individual's attitude. Kaizen is good.

[evagrius]

Bruce Hall;

To "fix the sub-culture" you have to not make it a sub-culture in comparison to the dominant culture.

You have to show, really show, that obtaining an education etc; will result in some economic success.
You have to show, really show, that this does not mean that one has to have incredible athletic talent, or be a gifted entertainer/musician, ( if you think about it, those are the "role models" most often seen by children in the sub-culture.-when was the last time they saw a doctor or nurse etc; that was from their own group?- these do exists, of course, but not in sufficient number or with not enough presence to be of note to these children).
There's a combination of self-reinforcement by both the sub-cultures and the dominant culture. The sub-cultures are expected by the dominant culture to act in certain ways, the sub-cultures thereferore act in those ways, because not acting in those ways is unexpected and defiant of both the sub-culture and the dominant one.Those that do defy are often ostracized by both.
Both sides reinforce each other's position.
To expect the sub-cultures not to act in those ways requires that the dominant culture expects them not to act in those ways, which of course, it doesn't.
At any rate, education in the U.S. is given very short shrift. Conformity, whether to the dominant culture's or the sub-culture's values and behavioral expectations is more highly valued than being an educated questioner of those values.

[Bruce Hall]

evagarius,

"At any rate, education in the U.S. is given very short shrift. Conformity, whether to the dominant culture's or the sub-culture's values and behavioral expectations is more highly valued than being an educated questioner of those values."

Then there is no answer. I don't accept that. If the sub-culture has elements that make it economically dysfunctional (e.g., disdain for education), then those elements must be understood, recognized, and changed. This can't be done by ignoring or denying those elements... even if it creates temporary friction between the sub-culture and the dominant culture. If lower income blacks refuse to be serious students because they fear losing their cultural "identity," then they have a distorted image of cultural "value." It is both possible and necessary to demonstrate that education is not just an element of dominant/white culture, but an element of successful individuals regardless of culture, before the cycle of dependency can be broken.

Pride in ones "dysfunctionality" is the greatest possible dysfunction because it precludes becoming functional and successful. This is where universities can use their resources and influence to bring in examples of educational and economic success that members of the subculture can identify with. This is where alternative paths can be identified and a vision of how to get from failure to success can be provided. Sure, that's just a starting point. But each individual has to grasp the significance of both why and how education leads to change and opportunity. Painting a school or purchasing computers or having a nice gym is nice, but if attitudes toward education are negative or indifferent, nothing will improve. It has to be personally targeted so that each person will accept responsibility for his own success or failure. Otherwise it will always be "them" that is the excuse for failure and the justification for accepting dependency.

In Michigan, 1 in 9 is on food stamps. Some because of circumstances they could not have controlled, but way too many because they didn't see themselves as responsible for their own future... a future that required education and skills beyond high school. The state can only provide minimal support now... enough to keep them fed. Ultimately, they will have to figure out how to extricate themselves and that may be very difficult... especially if they share a sub-culture attitude that fixes blame instead of the problem... themselves.

I sense that maybe we are not as far apart as our initial words may have indicated. Neither of us rejects helping (improving) as a legitimate process. Maybe it is just the method, the approach. You have shown thoughtfulness in your comments.

[evagrius]

Bruce Hall;

I worked for many years with the population you're discussing as a Food Stamps/ Medicaid eligibility worker and know fairly well their circumstances.

While obtaining a post-Master's certificate I was interned at a elementary school in a poor neighborhood.The neighborhood was composed of a mixture of minorities, ( black, Chinese, Hispanic, Pacific Islander) all of whom were low, very low, income. My task was to help design and oversee a project that would encourage young children and, especially their parents, to give great thought to striving for college.
Some survey work had been done before I arrived which I was privileged to see for use in setting up the project, ( a series of tours to local colleges and universities with presentations by educators from those places geared to parents). The survey covered children, parents and the children's teachers. What was interesting was the discrepancy in expectations regarding the children's futures. The children and parents were very optimistic that the children will be successful and attain college. The fly in the ointment were the teachers. Most were extremely pessimistic and doubtful that the children would succeed. The reason? The children were poor, there was lots of crime, the parents had negative attitudes, the children had no interest in learning etc;etc; Note- this was the prevalent attitude of the teachers, ( who were not minority on the whole). Needless to say, the tours were quite successful and very well attended by parents. The parents were optimistic, hopeful and quite proud of their children and very desiring that their children would succeed.
I think you can draw your own conclusions.

[Bruce Hall]

evagrius,

From a post to my own blog:

Detroit Mayor wants more charter schools for the city.

The problem is twofold:

* The State has a cap on the number of charter schools
* The Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT) opposes changes related to charter schools

Here's how I see the problem: charter schools are a substitute for existing schools rather than a solution.

It's not that public schools are bad (which many in the city of Detroit are) or that charter schools are better (that may be the case for some). It is that the politics surrounding charter schools pits the old public schools against the new charter schools. It's an "all or nothing" proposition.

I have written several times about how the University of Michigan should put "its money where its mouth is." Charter schools are not what I meant since those enterprises are designed to "generate money where it mouth is."

Rather than competing with Detroit Public Schools, U of M... and all other area universities and colleges... should develop a voluntary, hands-on consulting relationship with individual Detroit schools... the key words here are "hands on" rather than "consulting". Simply "telling" the schools what the answers are is not the answer. Working with the schools is.

Detroit's teachers have it bad enough with a failing system. University charter schools will bury that system. Of course, the DFT needs to be visionary enough to accept a situation where it can adapt to working with outside agencies... and make appropriate changes to their political agenda.

*******

But let's not blame it all on the schools that can only do so much with what they are given. Perhaps it is time to own up to what a massive study of Chicago's schools revealed. In the book Freakonomics by Dr. Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago, his analysis of this study revealed some interesting and sobering facts.

The short version is this: "bad" schools are not necessarily bad because of class size or teacher's education or computer-student ratio. Bad schools share common traits such as gang problems, non-student interferrence, and lack of PTA funding... symptoms or indicators of underlying social issues. And then there are the startling correlations between student performance and parents' backgrounds and actions. One hint: among the factors that didn't make a difference in the study were:

* the child's family being intact
* the child's parents moving to a better neighborhood
* the child attending "Head Start"
* the child's parents read to him nearly every day

What does make a difference? I suggest you read the book. This is in chapter 5. But I'll give you a hint: one factor was the mother's age when her first child was born.

[cm]

One thing I can state only as a superficial observation is that US media agencies apparently generate a good number of TV shows and movies portraying precisely the type of "minority" stereotypes presented here, in a more or less subtle way. There is another segment portraying and perhaps even promoting stereotypical teen/adolescent bimbo-style conduct and attire, and I'm yet unsure whether actual conduct observed in public is the consequence or the inspiration of this. At any rate, this type of media content shapes role models and perception of the portrayed population by others. I doubt that it is produced by members of the respective populations to define their own image.

[cm]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/teen_preg_stats.html

Reports 2002 nationwide teen pregnancies as 65/1000 for "whites" ans 113/1000 for "non-whites". I guess there must be some number of dysfunctional "white" "subcultures" too then.

[Bruce Hall]

cm,

Adolescent "popular" behaviors (imitation of MTV, etc.) is not the issue. I refer to behavior that reflects dysfunctional attitudes and perspectives.

Also, if you refer to earlier posts, I mentioned that dysfunctional subcultures exist among all ethnic/racial groups, but the data you cite seems to indicate that, at least for the measure of teen pregnancies, the "non-white" groups have a rate almost twice that of whites. We can discuss "causes" all day, but the reality is that the results are apparent in the economic outcomes.

[cm]

Bruce Hall: It's not a simple unidirectional causal relationship. There are feedback loops at work. One such feedback traction mechanism is "opportunity" and "prosperity". Dysfunctional behavior, or anything else associated with the individual, is not the only input into that. Limited opportunity by discrimination, effective segregation into spatially separated (different neighborhoods) "prosperity layers", and the associated gerrymandering and neglect of particular areas (in part justified and rationalized by dysfunctionality rhetoric) are others.

[evagrius]

Cm;

"At any rate, this type of media content shapes role models and perception of the portrayed population by others. I doubt that it is produced by members of the respective populations to define their own image."

I could not have stated it better. Mr. Hall is of the opinion that, somehow, all of this behavior is not being reinforced by the dominant culture.

If he thought about it for just one minute, ( which I have done- I'm no expert in this by any means), he should be able to reflect on these two points;

The "negative behavior" of "black sub-cultures" has been reinforced by mass media; "This is what you're supposed to do and be".

The behavior of Latino immigrants- Their behavior relects values from pre-industrial Indio/ Latin American agricultural societies.They have yet to integrate post-industrial values, let alone industrial values into their lives.

These two groups are, of course, the ones blamed. Not included are "white trash" which,paradoxically, are imitating the black sub-culture behavioral traits that he deplores.

It's far more complex than Mr. Hall allows, far more complex.

[cm]

evagrius: I would like to add that I'm not suggesting conspiracy theory style that this media reinforcement is done purposely (in general that is, some may), and neither segregation-style "layering" of society. It's more a group dynamic thing like so much else.

[evagrius]

I don't think it's a conspiracy either, certainly not intentionally.

[robert]

Traditional Kaizen or Continuous Improvement activities are, by definition, long term. Gradual incremental change results in small improvements throughout the organisation. It is 1000 things done 1% better. A variation on a traditional Kaizen event is "Pit Crew Kaizen". This comes from F1 or Nascar racing where the pit team is needs to get the car back onto the track as quickly as possible. Time of the essence here - too long and chances of winning are reduced. The pit crew who minimizes the downtime of the race car using good organization (5S), times and coordinates teamwork (Standard Work) and cuts out wasted motion helps win the race. An example can be found here: http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s176/st88425.htm

Rob

www.rob-thompson.net
www.63buckets.co.uk (lean)
www.qualityhero.co.uk (six sigma)